Sanitary products will no longer be referred to as female following a complaint which said “not all people who have periods are women”.
Except, of course, they are. That’s kind of the whole point. It’s kind of the whole point with cows and ewes and hens and mares and it’s kind of the whole point with women. Without that whole point there are no women or men. We’re animals first of all, and we’re divided into the egg-havers and the fertilizers. Without that we don’t exist at all.
The section rebrand came after an internal complaint said it was “disappointing” that sanitary products were referred to as “feminine care”.
Well, frankly, it’s also disappointing that the Telegraph is silly enough to use the vague meaningless “sanitary products” instead of, say, menstrual products. “Sanitary products” could just mean bottles of floor-cleaning liquids and similar. The issue here is menstruation, not some vague nameless detergent.
A movement to defend women’s rights is not an anti-rights movement.
Amnesty is pretending that men have a right to be seen and treated as women if they claim to be women, and that women have no right to tell such men to stay out of women’s organizations and spaces. Amnesty has lost its tiny mind.
The very headline is bad. Sanitary products? So you’re talking about stuff you put on floors to clean them, and stuff you pour down toilets and stuff you sprinkle in garbage cans and stuff you sprinkle on the sinks and bathtubs to scrub away the unsanitary slime and whatnot? But no; of course that’s not what they mean at all. “Sanitary products”=the wads of absorbent cotton women of childbearing age use to soak up the monthly shedding of the uterine lining. Isn’t it odd that those products are labeled “sanitary” as if to reassure us that the disgusting unholy taboo trayf nasty stuff that feeds new humans as they develop from fetus to baby will be soaked up and thrown away without disturbing the fastidious. We’re already on weirdly squicked-by-women territory, and it doesn’t get better from here.
Anyway. Let’s get to the really important stuff: supermarket chains that pwodwy suppowt the alphabet soup communidee. Who cares what faction of demanding men Waitrose supports? Is it men who do most of the Waitrose shopping?
They want their shops and workplaces to be places where people can be themselves without fear of judgement. They say. Do they? Does that mean they want their employees to be grumbling and swearing whenever they’re in a bad mood, telling customers to fuck off, helping themselves to an occasional luxury item? I doubt it. I strongly doubt they care at all about employees “being themselves without fear of judgement” – they care about employees doing their jobs and not demanding higher wages.
Oh well don’t be so literal, they might tell me if they were here. They didn’t mean all the time and about everything – they meant about trans people. What about them? Um…that it’s required to declare solidarity with them in one way or another at least once a month? Something like that.
So they do. “We celebrate Pride, we talk about inclusion, but ah ah ah watch out, inclusion isn’t just about rainbows once a year. No indeed. That’s why we have to stop calling sanitary products (the stuff meant to soak up filthy womany goo, you know) ‘Feminine Care’. It’s so disappointing that we do that, as if women were the only people who spill filthy goo once a month.”
Wouldn’t it be simpler to skip the women or women and men part and just call it Filthy Goo Care? Wouldn’t that just be so inclusive and inclusive?
There’s more.
Yet the language we use still suggests that these products are exclusively for women and femininity.
[sound of screeching brakes]
What?? That these products are for femininity? What does that even mean?
It doesn’t mean anything unless you interpret it through the lens of morbid envy and suspicion of women, and you thus have a resentful idea that women horde womanyism for themselves out of sheer spite and won’t share it with men because they’re that bitch back in 4th grade who had nicer sweaters than little Pauly did.
To some people, that might seem like a small detail. To me, it isn’t. Words matter because people matter.
Well, yes, without people there wouldn’t be any words to matter, and if there were any, they wouldn’t matter to anyone, because there wouldn’t be any anyone. We can swap tautologies all day long, but it doesn’t really get us anywhere.
The bill defines “conversion practice” as any conduct with the intention of causing the individual to have or not have (or to believe that they have or do not have) a particular sexual orientation or transgender identity.
If you look at it a certain way, the sex realists should not have anything to fear from this statute. The key thing to remember is that sex is different and separate from “gender” or “gender identity.” The genderists scream at us all the time that we’re the ones mixing everything up, when in fact they are the ones constantly and conveniently equivocating sex and gender.
Mostly, nobody is interested in gay conversion any more, except (1) the traditional religionists who think homosexuality is sinful, and (2) now, the transgenderists who are persuading gay kids that they are not really gay, but transgender, born in the wrong body.
The transgenderists had better watch out, lest conversion therapy charges be levelled against them, and prosecution brought by intervening busybodies.
Anyhow, on the “gay conversion” prong, the sex realists shouldn’t have anything to worry about, because we don’t care if someone is gay, and we are not interested in talking anyone into or out of being gay.
On the transgender prong, the sex realists also should generally not have anything to worry about, because, again, we don’t care about the fantasies in their heads. What we care about is the reality of sex. If we correctly-sex a transgender person, we don’t have any “intention of causing them to have or not have … a gender identity.” They can claim whatever gender identity they want. That’s not important to us. Sex is what is important in a lot of contexts, and we are only talking about sex. We are only guarding against people lying about their sex.
Having “G” gender identity does not give that person license to lie about their sex. That’s our issue, not whether or not someone claims a gender identity.
Following his grotesquely public arrest by a carload of cops for…writing words.
Mr Linehan was detained at Heathrow airport last September by five armed officers after a transgender activist complained about remarks posted on X months earlier.
Five armed cops at the airport would make sense for a possibly armed and dangerous murderer or terrorist or similar. For a writer with opinions, it makes no sense at all – it makes anti-sense, it makes a fragment of the universe where sense goes to die.
In a letter seen by The Telegraph, a senior Met officer wrote: “Whilst there can be no doubt that all officers acted in good faith throughout and were seeking to do their best in the circumstances, the investigation identified shortcomings in both the investigation, arrest and imposition of bail conditions.”
No actually let me contradict you there: there can very much be doubt that all officers acted in good faith. Whatever officers decided to send FIVE armed cops to Heathrow to collar him in public did not act in good faith. They wouldn’t send five armed cops to Waitrose to arrest a shoplifter would they? But writing words is somehow five armed cops-worthy? That’s not good faith, bro.
Parents who are found guilty of “abusively” trying to change their child’s sexuality or gender identity could be jailed under new legislation, a minister has confirmed.
Olivia Bailey, the minister for equalities, said parents would not be given any “carve-out” from the government’s planned ban on “abusive conversion practices” that cause “serious harm” to the victim. Those found guilty of breaching the proposed law could be sentenced to up to five years in prison.
Amid concern from religious and gender-critical campaigners that the draft Conversion Practices Bill could undermine parental autonomy, Bailey insisted the legislation will not prevent parents from choosing how to raise their children, as the courts will only convict people guilty of practices which meet strict thresholds for abuse.
Ok, so…why make it about “conversion practices” at all? Why not just make it about abuse? I think it’s possible there’s already a law against abuse, so why not just rely on that? There’s no need to pass separate laws for every possible cause of abuse is there? Abuse is abuse; it shouldn’t matter what the reason for it is.
The minister told The House magazine: “This is about abuse; it is about a very specific form of abuse. It is not about policing opinions, it is not about policing how parents parent, and it is for the courts to determine, not politicians, but – rightly – for the courts to determine what meets that threshold of abuse.”
But why is it about a very specific form of abuse? Why isn’t it sufficient to have a law against abuse?
The bill defines a conversion practice as “any conduct” carried out with the intention of causing another person to have or not to have, or to believe they have or do not have, a particular sexuality or transgender identity.
Any conduct, eh? So talking to the male teenager about why he thinks he’s a girl equals abuse? Do you pause to think you might be widening the definition of abuse a little too far?
The “impact” the Code will have on trans people is that the male ones will find it more difficult to shove women aside in their own spaces and organizations. Apparently Whittome wants to see women shoved aside.
The problem, as I see it, is the “identity” part of “gender identity”.
The debate focuses so much around the word “gender”, that “identity” tends to slip right under the radar. Which is weird when you think about it, because the gender part really isn’t an issue.
Debates about gender expression are long gone. No one cares anymore about women wearing pants and not shaving their arm and leg hair, or men wearing blouses and painting their fingernails, or whatever. The difference between the past and the present is that now we’ve hitched people’s fluid and diverse modes of personal “gender expression” to a rigid collection of distinct, sacred & holy “gender identity” categories.
(To boot, we then convinced everyone that some of these categories necessitate supposedly life-saving medical “treatments”, and then we declared that no one is allowed to question anyone’s vibes about their magic “identity” categories.)
In the sense that “gender identities” are socially constructed categories whose relevance is derived from a cultural system of belief rather than any material basis of distinction — the difference between a man and a “trans woman” is purely a matter of tribal/identitarian feelings — they have a lot in common with the religious/cultural/ethnic concept of castes.
And we’ve always known that it’s a bad idea to mix such concepts with legislation.
The UK has explicitly grappled with this issue over the past decade and a half. Discrimination against people based on their perceived “caste” is obviously bad and should be prohibited by law. But the problem is, by explicitly naming caste as a freestanding protected characteristic, the government risks making the category of caste look official, stable, and administratively real.
Following a landmark 2014 employment tribunal over caste discrimination — Chandhok & Anor v. Tirkey — Parliament undertook a public consultation to determine if caste should be addressed solely through case-law under the existing anti-race and anti-religion discrimination framework, or if it should instead be promoted to its own explicit legal protection category within the UK’s definitive anti-discrimination guidebook, the one we’re all familiar with by now: the Equality Act 2010.
In 2018, the results of the consultation were released, and the response was overwhelmingly opposed to reifying “caste” as a legislatively salient category separate from existing case-law surrouding ethnic, religious, and racial discrimination. The reasons cited were that caste is almost impossible to define, and that naming it might perversely incentivize employers, universities, landlords, and other agencies to explicitly ask people about their caste status.
(Arguments about caste are taking place across North America, too. For one example, in 2023, California Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed legislation that attempted to add caste as an explicit protected characteristic, and he cited more-or-less the same reasons for opposing it.)
Another argument for keeping caste out of legislation is that it essentially associates South Asians with the caste system whether they like it or not. Which is why the overwhelming majority of Hindus and South Asians who responded to the UK consultation opposed reifying it in the language of law.
Many LGB people feel exactly the same way about the government reifying “gender identity” in law: it’s a hazy concept that is strongly associated with us, but which many of us don’t want to be forcibly associated with. Gays who oppose the whole gender identity ideology are in many ways a lot like Hindus living in the UK who oppose the caste system: they are a subgroup within a minority group, who are at risk of discrimination because the majority fails to recognize and protect them.
There’s one big difference between caste and gender identity, though: “gender identity” proponents want to see the label reified in law beacuse it confers advantages to its believers at the expense of everyone else — they benefit from it. There is a sizeable activist group who want their identity to be forced on everyone else. Whereas with caste, it’s the opposite: there is a sizeable activist group who want out of the discrimination they face because caste is imposed on them against their wishes. It’s lower castes who have it imposed on them, whereas with gender activists, it’s everyone else, ordinary men and women not involved in gender world and just trying to go about their business, who end up losing their rights.
The draft bill to “ban conversion therapy practices” is a trojan horse campaign, mounted by extremist “gender identity” true believers, whose primary objective is to insert their mystical concept of gender identity into law, thereby reifying it and making it “official” and “real”, and forcing everyone else in the country to play along with their personal way of dividing and organizing and categorizing and grouping society.
Those who oppose this legislation should be bringing forward the parallels with caste legislation, and driving home the point that this is a quasi-religious activist group that is motivated to impose its own discriminatory worldview on everyone else.
The government has published a draft bill to ban “conversion practices”.
While there are improvements on previous drafts of this law, it remains an attempt to shift “Stonewall Law” – now slowly being driven out of workplaces and services – into homes and classrooms.
It puts parents, therapists, teachers and partners at risk of being subjected to investigation if they do not affirm that someone is “male” or “female “ (or both, or neither) based on their personal declaration rather than their biology.
Um. That’s an incredibly low bar for being investigated. Terrifyingly low.
It also hands the power of private prosecution to organisations like the Good Law Project and Nancy Kelley’s Trans Solidarity Alliance.
So Jolyon Maugham will be empowered to punish people for not pretending a man is a woman.
The bill defines “conversion practice” as any conduct with the intention of causing the individual to have or not have (or to believe that they have or do not have) a particular sexual orientation or transgender identity. The question of whether conduct amounts to an abuse is a question of fact “to be determined by reference to all the circumstances of the case”.
Hey you know what else is a question of fact? The whole idea that men can be women. The relevant fact is that they cannot. Many other relevant facts flow from this one. Will the courts be keeping that in mind?
The offence of carrying out an abusive conversion practice on an individual is defined in terms of causing “serious harm” to the individual’s physical or mental health, or “serious alarm or distress to the individual which has a substantial adverse effect on their usual day-to-day activities”. This could potentially mean a wife telling her husband to stop wearing her clothes, parents telling a child they will not pay for puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones, or a school insisting on referring to all children accurately as girls or boys, in line with its safeguarding responsibilities.
And the potential is all the greater because of years of catastrophizing about “transphobia” and genner idenniny.
More solemn discussion of the massively complicated and nuanced and sensitive fact that men are not women.
The president of the US’s top administrator of collegiate sports on Sunday said his organization does not anticipate adjusting its rules on transgender athletes after a recent federal supreme court decision allowed states to ban them from participating in school athletics.
In an interview with CBS News’ Face the Nation, Charlie Baker, the NCAA president, alluded to how his organization in late January 2025 had effectively banned transgender athletes from women’s sports by closing off those programs to athletes who were assigned male at birth or were taking testosterone therapy. There are no restrictions for participation in NCAA men’s sports, which Baker referred to on Sunday as “the open network”.
Gosh, really? Now why might that be? Does anyone know? Could it possibly be because women playing in men’s sports do not have an advantage but rather its opposite, a disadvantage?
The Guardian, of course, doesn’t bother to say. The Guardian pretends it’s just one of life’s funny little anomalies.
The supreme court majority’s ruling essentially said that banning trans women and girls from competing in female sports does not run afoul of Title IX, a civil rights law prohibiting discrimination in education.
It overturned prior judgments issued by lower courts in relation to two trans students – one in college and the other in high school – who had sued after being barred from competing in West Virginia and Idaho.
Look how carefully the Guardian avoids saying why it’s males who are banned from women’s sports and not females who are banned from men’s sports. Look how carefully the Guardian avoids even admitting that the two “trans students” in question are not females. The Guardian goes to great lengths to conceal the truth of what they’re reporting on.
The supreme court majority’s ruling essentially said that banning trans women and girls from competing in female sports does not run afoul of Title IX, a civil rights law prohibiting discrimination in education.
It overturned prior judgments issued by lower courts in relation to two trans students – one in college and the other in high school – who had sued after being barred from competing in West Virginia and Idaho.
Oops! It stumbles and admits the truth for a few seconds with “banning trans women and girls from competing in female sports” but then it hastens to pull the curtain again with “two trans students”.
The reporting here carefully and with malice does everything it can to hide the fact that males have large physical advantages over females and that is why they should not force their way into women’s sports. It’s all framed as women who object are Trump fans and the poor banished trans gurls are their shattered abused victims. It’s vomitous.
President Trump made two glaring mix-ups Wednesday while speaking to the press at a NATO summit in Turkey.
“We had 111 missiles shot by the Islamic Republic of Japan. They were shot at the aircraft carrier,” Trump said, inventing a new government and confusing Japan with Iran.
A few minutes later, sitting alongside Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and pointing to him directly, Trump asked reporters, “You have a question for President Putin, please?” The assembled press chuckled, and some tried to correct Trump, who then tried to spin his mistake by claiming that’s what he meant.
Trans people deserve dignity and respect. I've written to the Women and Equalities Minister, urging her to listen to calls from myself & other MPs to disapprove the draft EHRC Code. Read my letter below 👇 pic.twitter.com/cLYjcQf9Gq
The wording of the draft code will exclude trans people from services they have long used – in other words, trans people have long been helping themselves to services meant for other people, which is at best rude and at worst a crime. It is, of course, as we know all too well, especially obnoxious and/or criminal when it’s women’s services that men are helping themselves to. It’s hair-raising to see a working MP cheering on men who grab women’s spaces and services for themselves, especially when that MP is herself a woman. What about women, god damn it?!
On and on it goes, hand-wringing over trans people and completely ignoring the needs and risks of female people, even though she is a female person herself. It’s utterly disgusting and contemptible. I hope she gets voted out at the earliest opportunity.
He’s like the annoying kid in the back seat who keeps asking for ice cream.
Trump said on Tuesday that Greenland should be controlled by the United States, not Denmark, reaffirming a stance that has caused tensions among NATO allies just as leaders of the alliance gathered for a summit in Turkey.
Trump’s assertions that the U.S. must acquire or control Greenland, a semi-autonomous Danish territory, have long strained relations between Washington and Copenhagen — both founding NATO members — and more broadly U.S. ties with Europe. The issue has since moved to a diplomatic track.
Trump should be controlled by jailors, not Republicans.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said she expected allies to respect the sovereignty of the Danish kingdom and accept that Greenland was not for sale.
“It is a well-known position of the United States that it wants to own and take over Greenland. I hope that it is equally well-known everywhere that this is not going to happen,” Frederiksen said.
Now of course if it’s just a question of who has the power, that’s not true, but it’s not just a question of who has the power. If things go badly it will end up that way, but so far it’s not that simple. We can only hope it remains not that simple until his presidency ends or he drops dead.
A new report from the White House accuses the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History of “extreme political activism” and blames museum leaders for erasing America’s heritage.
The report, titled “Saving America’s Story” and published Saturday, is the result of an executive order President Donald Trump signed in March 2025 demanding “improper ideology” be eliminated from Smithsonian’s museums.
The report’s “central finding” is that “museum leadership has explicitly adopted an ideological framework that no longer treats the American story as a shared national inheritance to be taught or celebrated, but as a political instrument to divide, dispirit, and discourage our citizens.”
The buried assumption there is that history can be free of ideology. Fun fact: it can’t. There is no ideology-free delivery device that sweeps up all the bits and pieces that make up “history” and dumps them into a book or museum or statue. Deciding which bits to include and which bits to skip depends on the starting assumptions: bam, there’s your ideology.
“To the extent that there is a story told at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History, it is not one of ‘the victory of freedom and genius of our country’ but one of regret, tragedy, and shame,” the report adds.
See? That’s ideology right there, talking about more ideologies. It’s ideology all the way down.
A Smithsonian spokesperson said in a statement Sunday: “For more than 180 years, the Smithsonian has served the American public with nonpartisan and independent scholarship, and we remain committed to doing so.”
The National Museum of American History has long been among the most scrutinized of the Smithsonian’s 21 museums.
In July 2025, it removed references to Trump’s impeachments from an exhibit display, as part of a content review that the Smithsonian agreed to undertake following pressure from the White House, The Washington Post reported at the time. The references were restored a week later.
Propaganda much?
The White House has launched reviews of the content of several Smithsonian museums, criticized specific exhibits and wall texts and threatened to withhold funds already approved to the institution if it fell short. The Smithsonian has sent over files in return.
But the new report marks yet another escalation. It accuses current Smithsonian leadership of imposing a “radical, activist ideology” on the museums and refusing to tell “the noble, honest story of the great country we know and love.”
Noble, eh? Is the story noble all the way through, in every particular, without spot or blemish? Are you sure?
Not only did Belgium mock Trump on the field by doing his stupid dance, but they also did it in the locker-room after the World Cup victory.pic.twitter.com/jcfydJaLC7
Belgium’s prime minister, Bart De Wever, has yet to comment on the national team’s triumph, but the official Instagram account of his cat offered a sardonic, albeit indirect sign of satisfaction. Maximus, De Wever’s beloved cat, was shown lying on a rug holding a soft toy in the image of the US president. “I slept really well last night. And you?” reads the speech bubble in Dutch.
…
Amid celebrations, the national team’s social media post after the emphatic 4-1 victory saying “Overturn this” went viral. Also gaining vast numbers of likes and clicks were clips of the teams on-pitch celebrations mocking Donald Trump’s dancing. After Romelu Lukaku scored the final goal for Belgium, the team celebrated by imitating Trump’s stiff arm-shuffling moves to YMCA.
The stiff shuffling arms that end in the tiny clenched fists suspended from the enormous torso.
• Belgium ends the USA’s dream: The summer of soccer love is over for the USA’s World Cup squad after losing 4-1 to Belgium, and many US players were in tears after the final whistle. Two early goals from Charles De Ketelaere and some awful US defending allowed a third from Hans Vanaken. Romelu Lukaku added the final goal in the last seconds.
• Agonizing defeat: Added to the embarrassment was the fact that much of the world will take joy in the US’ humiliation after the controversy over FIFA’s decision to suspend Folarin Balogun’s one-game ban following a red card in the Round of 32.
Trump’s interference in the tournament sparked accusations that he interfered in the tournament. Gosh, ya think? Could that be because he did interfere in the tournament? Duuuhhh.
You're a large man who asserts that his submissiveness makes him a woman (as you've previously stated on this platform). You fetishise vulnerability, yet by no objective measure are you genuinely vulnerable. You're just another bloke who hates women saying no.
Funny how he’s not being submissive to JKR. So much for the hallmark!
Anyway, is this progressive or what – women are submissive and men get to claim to be women and then lecture us on how submissiveness is the hallmark of being us.
What does submissive mean? Inferior. Subordinate. Lesser, weaker, smaller, stupider. It’s an intense insult, and 100 times more so coming from a man who playacts being a woman.
Hey come on now. Give this guy a break. So he used to say men could be women, so what, he’s stopped saying it now, so be a nice person and just ignore all the damage he did for the last ten years or whatever. It’s only women after all.
Don't dogpile this guy. Thank him for being honest. He stated that he changed his mind and now understands that a woman cannot have a penis. We are in the beginning of a mass vehement denial where people deny they ever believed any of it. Reward honesty, esp about idiotic things. https://t.co/mfJkMLc0NX
— Peter Boghossian (@peterboghossian) July 6, 2026
Reward the people who pushed trans ideology for years but have now stopped. Don’t, of course, reward the people who fought the trans ideology for years. They don’t matter. It’s only the very late converts who matter.
I realize this is relatively minor compared to everything else that is going on, but the whole mess with the men’s team at the World Cup is just another example of how sleazy people in power suck up to Trump like mob bosses kissing the Godfather’s ring. To recap, for those who haven’t been following:
The US striker (and leading goal scorer) Folarin Balogun* got a red card in the match against Bosnia last week. It was a questionable decision, based on a VAR review apparently looking at the action in slow motion (which they’re not supposed to do), but it comes with an automatic suspension for the next match, and there’s no appeal. Balogun wasn’t happy with the decision, but he accepted it.
Or at least there’s not supposed to be an appeal, as the US Soccer Federation admitted. But in Trump’s world, everything is transactional. So Trump called Gianni Infantino, the President of FIFA, and asked him to do something. And Infantino, being the corrupt suck-up that he is, decided to put Balogun essentially on probation for a year, so that he can play against Belgium tonight.
Now Belgium is pissed, understandably, and is appealing the appeal. And UEFA is pissed at FIFA, and soccer fans outside of the US are pissed at the US, and whatever happens tonight it’s a whole fucking mess, and so typical of the way that Trump slimes everything he touches.
*Balogun, incidentally, is a birthright citizen. His parents are Nigerians who were living in London; his mother had been visiting relatives in Brooklyn, but British Airways wouldn’t allow her to board a plane home while she was in her seventh month, so Balogun was born in the US.
